Climategate & Investigations of IPCC and CRU: Was There a Pattern of Cover Up?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Every time a serious threat to IPCC climate science appears, whether scientific or political, diversions and counterattacks are implemented. It usually involves people and agencies at the highest levels, with dissemination and support through major media outlets. One of the earliest examples involved changes to the 1995 IPCC Report Chapter 8 comments agreed on in committee. The response is proportional to the political damage they perceive. Avery and Singer noted about Chapter 8 changes,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

The misleading item is then defended and substantiated by a cover-up and later cited as evidence that nothing was wrong. In that case, an article was quickly produced and published in Nature within a year (July 1996). The problem was it used a selected portion of a graph to show a trend that was not evident in the full record. See below:

John Daly recreated Santer et al’s graph (Figure 1) of the upward temperature trend in the Upper Atmosphere.


Figure 1

Then Daly produced a graph of the wider data set in Figure 2 and explains, “we see that the warming indicated in Santer’s version is just a product of the dates chosen” (Daly’s bold).


Figure 2

In addition, articles appeared in the New York Times attacking the credibility of Professors Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz. The attack on Singer began the now familiar connection of climate deniers as equal to the tobacco deniers because he had written a critique of the bad science in an article on second-hand smoke. His critique was later shown to be correct, but it was used to suggest he was supporting “big tobacco.”

A more challenging cover up was required after the 2009 release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Recently, Elizabeth May, leader of the Canadian Green Party claimed official investigations exonerated the activities revealed by the emails. I responded that the investigations were corrupted, but did not have time to elaborate. May suggested my comments indicated I was looking for another lawsuit, referring to the lawsuits against me by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver. The latter is currently an elected Green Party member of the British Columbia legislature.

Michael Mann also claims these investigations exonerated him and the CRU activities in his lawsuits with Mark Steyn.

One of Mann’s arguments is that his work has been “exonerated” by a number of investigations, including that of EPA. As our reply brief shows, that is simply untrue. But one thing that EPA did examine was Mann’s own claim that the work of certain opposing scientists was a “fraud”. In EPA’s view, “fraud” is an “entirely acceptable and appropriate” term in scientific debate. (CEI Reply Brief at p.11.)

In short, EPA didn’t exonerate Mann, but it may well have exonerated the defendants.

The greatest threat to IPCC science came with the release of 1000 emails from the CRU in November of 2009. A further 6000 released in November of 2011 expanded and elaborated on the extent of activities and actions taken to produce a specific scientific claim. The emails provided evidence of the methods used to pursue what they referred to as “the cause” by key players in the IPCC Science and Summary for Policymakers reports. In their words, they tell us how they created the ‘scientific’ evidence to support the political agenda. CRU Director Phil Jones dismissed the material as normal scientific banter and added in a classic understatement to the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee,

“I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.”

It was no surprise that skeptics understood the significance of the emails because they confirmed what they were thinking and saying. A more accurate measure of their significance was the reactions of mainstream media who had pushed the IPCC AGW line. Andrew Revkin resigned from the New York Times and George Monbiot of The Guardian wrote,

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

People like Monbiot were rattled, but some, possibly unaware of the implications of the emails, shrugged off the problems. Others, including a few politicians began to ask questions. It appears politicians spot scandals better than others as they are steeped in them directly or indirectly throughout their careers. Pressure to restore confidence in the IPCC and the CRU scientists was intense and growing. Both leaks achieved their objective of stunting advance of climate politics through the Conference of the Parties (COP) at Copenhagen, and ending support for the Kyoto Protocol while blunting the effectiveness of any substitute.

Response to Damage of Leaked CRU Emails

To salvage the entire IPCC process, it was essential to begin by restoring the credibility of the scientists exposed in the emails. Apparently the decision to pursue a cover-up was taken by major agencies directly involved, either because of political commitment, funding or both. They initiated five inquiries, apparently all orchestrated to mislead and cover up what the emails exposed.

Andrew Montford provided an excellent analysis of what went on in “The Climategate Inquiries.” The piece opens with a quote from Professor of Climatology Hans van Storch.

“We have to take a self-critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the Inquiries—like—in the UK—did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.”

The reason an insider like van Storch thinks they missed an opportunity is because he wanted explanations. Those carrying out the inquiries wanted to fool the public. Comments by Elizabeth May and Mann’s use of them in a court indicate their success. Disconnects between what “insiders” know and what the public perceive are central to other major deceptions. As David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer, explained about the biggest deception, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

Systematically omitted from the SPM are the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. These actions are advocacy, not assessment.

Leaked Email Inquiries

Lord Turnbull summarized the serious allegations in the Foreword to Montford’s report:

  • That scientists at the CRU had failed to give a full and fair view to policymakers and the IPCC of all the evidence available to them;
  • That they deliberately obstructed access to data and methods to those taking different viewpoints for themselves;
  • That they failed to comply with Freedom of Information requirements;
  • That they sought to influence the review panels of journals in order to prevent rival scientific evidence from being published.

Three United Kingdom Inquiries:

1. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation was required because of the involvement of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) and its links with the CRU. A former Director of the UKMO, John Houghton was appointed the first head of the IPCC.

This inquiry seems pointless, other than as an opportunity for politicians to be able to say they had considered the issue of the leaked emails. They initially canceled their inquiry when the University of East Anglia said they were investigating. Apparently because of pressure or because some saw political opportunities they sought input from the public, but only received 58 submissions. They effectively deferred to the UEA. Sir Muir Russell, Chair of one of the UEA investigations appeared before them to explain what he was doing.

Four other panels were questioned, but nobody qualified or knowledgeable about climatology was included, knowledge essential to understanding what the emails were saying. They did not finish their work because of an election. They assumed the Oxburgh and Russell inquiries would resolve the matter. Attempts to strongly admonish the CRU for their actions were all defeated.

2. The Oxburgh panel was appointed and directed by UEA. It was likely the most compromised of the inquiries so much so that its findings are meaningless except as evidence of a cover-up.

There were no written terms of reference. UEA said Oxburgh was going to investigate the science. He didn’t. Oxburgh and his committee of six were recommended by the Royal Society, which was directly involved in promoting the IPCC and CRU. A recent article by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) exposed the Royal Society’s activities in distorting and misrepresenting climate science.

Oxburgh was compromised because he is a Fellow of the Royal Society, but more important, he is CEO of Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable Resources that benefit from the claim that human CO2 is causing warming. He also promoted the warming claim as UK Vice-Chair of GLOBE International, a consortium of Industry, NGOs’ and Government that lobbies for global warming policy.

• The Oxburgh Inquiry was directed to examine the CRU science, but failed. The other failures;

• There were no public hearings:

• There was no call for evidence.

• Only 11 academic papers were examined; a list vetted by Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, the agency central to the investigation.

• Only unrecorded closed interviews with CRU staff were held.

• There were no meetings with CRU critics.

• UEA had effective control throughout the Inquiry.

• The UK House of Commons Select Committee grilled Oxburgh on the shallowness of his study and report and its failure to review the science as promised.

3. The Independent Climate Change Emails Review (ICCER), more commonly called the Muir Russell Inquiry, was also created by the University of East Anglia.

It was compromised from the start by the conflict of interest of members. One appointment was Philip Campbell, editor of Nature. He resigned when his bias was revealed. Another appointee, Geoffrey Boulton, had two major problems. He had signed a petition from the UK Met Office declaring full support for the CRU and IPCC science. He had been employed at UEA when the Inquiry said members had no links to the university. He said he was not a climate expert when a CV sent to a Chinese University stated the opposite.

There was a call for public submissions on February 11, 2010 with a virtually impossible deadline of March 1, 2010 (17 days). They did not hold public hearings and only interviewed CRU and UEA staff. Those items alone are sufficient to indicate the bias of the inquiry to a preconceived result. In a commentary on the Muir Russell Report, Fred Pearce of the UK Guardian, a paper long known for its strong support of the IPCC wrote,

“Secrecy was the order of the day at CRU. “We find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,” says the report. That criticism applied not just to Jones and his team at CRU. It applied equally to the university itself, which may have been embarrassed to find itself in the dock as much as the scientists on whom it asked Russell to sit in judgment.”

Montford’s report showed all three Inquiries and their reports had serious flaws. Lord Turnbull summarized Montford’s findings as follows.

· These inquiries were hurried

· The terms of reference were unclear

· Insufficient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure balance and independence

· Insufficient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of those being investigated, eg., the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the papers it should read

· Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor Jones, and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology Select Committee attended the crucial final meeting to sign off their report.

· Record keeping was poor.

Turnbull concludes,

“But above all, Andrew Montford’s report brings out the disparity between the treatment of the incumbents and the critics. The former appeared to be treated with kid gloves and their explanations readily accepted without serious challenge. The letter [sic] has been disbursed denied adequate opportunity to put their case.”

One North American Inquiry at Penn State:

1. Penn State University appointed an inquiry because of involvement of Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at that university. Penn State University has procedures for Inquiry and also Investigation of Academic wrongdoing. In the leaked emails case, they carried out an Inquiry. The rules require five (5) tenured professors with competency, but no conflict. The committee appointed included one tenured professor, one untenured with an MS in Psychology, and an administrator. The untenured professor left during the Inquiry and was replaced by another administrator.

There was no call for evidence or public hearings. They only interviewed three people. Michael Mann was asked about questions for which he had prior notice. Gerald North of Texas A & M and Donald Kennedy of Stanford were interviewed. Neither was involved with the emails, but were publicly sympathetic to the IPCC work.

Comments by Clive Crook about the Penn State Inquiry provide an excellent summary:

“The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with the hockey stick—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for lack of credible evidence, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?” The report continues: “The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr. Lindzen’s statement. Instead his attention was directed to the fourth allegation.”) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

Steve Milloy, the founder of the web page JunkScience, explains why Crook was so dissatisfied and did a similar analysis of the Penn State Inquiry as Andrew Montford did for the UEA Inqurieis:

· “The review apparently extended little further than the Climategate e-mails themselves, an interview with Mann, materials submitted by Mann and whatever e-mails and comments floated in over the transom. Not thorough at all.

· Comically, the report explains at length how the use of the word “trick” can mean a “clever device.” The report ignores that it was a “trick… to hide the decline.” There is no mention of “hide the decline” in the report.

· The report concludes there is no evidence to indicate that Mann intended to delete e-mails. But this is contradicted by the plain language and circumstances surrounding Mann’s e-mail exchange with Phil Jones — See page 9 of Climategate & Penn State: The Case for an Independent Investigation.

· The report dismisses the accusation that Mann conspired to silence skeptics by stating, “one finds enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the e-mails and their content.” Maybe there wouldn’t be so much “confusion” if PSU actually did a thorough investigation rather than just relying on the word of Michael Mann.

· Although PSU is continuing the investigation, its reason is not to investigate Mann so much as it is to exonerate climate alarmism. On page 9 of the report, it says that “questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct… may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist… and public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.”

One International Inquiry:

The Inter Academy Council (IAC) is a UN group designed to act as a public relations panel for national academies of science. It was commissioned by the IPCC to investigate their procedures. It is very limited because of previous close and conflicting connections with IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri.

Brief Overview of the Inquiries:

A brief analysis of each inquiry explains why Clive Crook, Senior editor of The Atlantic wrote:

“I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

George Monbiot as a fierce advocate of the IPCC and the CRU wrote on his personal blog,

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Overall Summary of the Investigations

There was a distinct pattern to the process used in each inquiry, which was clearly dictated by the cover up objective.

  • The people appointed to the inquiries were either compromised through conflict or had little knowledge of climatology or the IPCC process.
  • They did not have clearly defined objectives and failed to achieve any they publicized.
  • Interviews were limited to the accused.
  • Experts, who knew what went on and how it was done, that is understood what the emails were saying, were not interviewed.
  • Validity of the science and the results obtained as published in the IPCC Reports were not examined, yet the deceptions were to cover these problems.
  • All investigations were seriously inadequate in major portions so as to essentially negate their findings. It appears these inadequacies were deliberate to avoid exposure of the truth.
  • They all examined only one limited side of the issues, so it was similar to hearing only half of a conversation and what you hear is preselected.

The mock inquiries achieved their objective because the media stopped asking questions. People, like Elizabeth May, accepted their findings as legitimate. It also allowed those people identified in the emails to claim they were absolved of any wrongdoing.

Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge said:

“Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster.”

But it is more than that. It was a political agenda driven by an ideology that believes the end justifies the means, even if it requires misusing science or protecting the people who misuse science. It is an ideology that requires cover-up of evidence or actions necessary to advance the agenda.


76 thoughts on “Climategate & Investigations of IPCC and CRU: Was There a Pattern of Cover Up?

  1. The age of “Freedom of Information” is over. When a high-level government official can flout statute and keep her own email server, destroy “information” (that wanted to be free) at her own whim, and face no consequence from her peers in the political ranks or the voters, then there is no point whatever in assuming lesser officials and staffers among the ordinary classes of government drones will have any incentive to preserve or produce records demanded in the pretty name of this so-called “Freedom”.

    Heil Hillary!

    • As long as there are members of Congress who benefit from “Climate Change” in one way or another this situation will continue.

      Congress already has the authority to investigate misconduct but chooses not to use this authority.

      But keep sending them messages anyway!

      • So you think members of the U.S. Congress are so powerful that they can dictate to the rest of the world? I think that is a step above even their own megalomania.

  2. Their day of reckoning will come. Someday a picture of Hansen, Mann, Feely, et al. will appear next to “scientific fraud” in the encyclopedias.

    • Will they be remembered like the guys who discovered Cold Fusion? What were their names anyway?

  3. Andrew Revkin resigned from the New York Times? I think you have that wrong. He resigned as a reporter but still is a regular contributor to his Dot Earth blog.
    Stretching this point is not worthwhile. It was amusing to see Revkin sanctimoniously refuse to confront climategate because the emails were stolen goods, but if you’re implying that Revkin’s views on climate change have altered much, you’re kidding us.

  4. It’s worth knowing that the Climategate inquiry is not the first time Muir Russell was in the hot seat. It was widely reported that he as the Civil servant in charge was largely responsible for the cost over run on the building of the Scottish parliament. As such he should have been held responsible but somehow evaded that. And far from his career suffering, he appears to have had a charmed life being Chancellor of Glasgow University and head of the Judicial appointments panel in Scotland.

    I would love to read his memoirs and discoverer who in high office owed him a favour.

    • That combination of events, consequences and positions is only, repeat only, possible by his being a senior member of a certain secret society.

      • Welcome to Muizenberg Crispin. I hope you can get some surfing in while you are here, the mountains are a bit monochrome and quite dull at the moment but the fynbos is coming back already.

        The secret society you allude to is just the Powers That Be. They will always beat us little guys with the rules they are exempt from. Just watch our very own escapologist, the Amazing Jacob Zuma.

        It is so obvious they all hang together and are fully protected by a complaisant media and a crooked legal system. Grrrrrrr!

  5. My studies of European and Russian climate data indicate to me that in these regions the “hiatus” actually began in late 1987 – perhaps September in Europe and a year later in Siberia. Farfetched? No. Look carefully a the data for yourselves. I don’t know how to submit graphics which is a pity. They are convincing.

    • I too would like to know how to edit my posts properly with graphs, quotes, italics etc… I know on other sites I can for instance enter a quote by typing, [quote] this is a quote [/quote]

      [Use “blockquote” rather than “quote” within the html brackets. .mod]

      • or here:
        and get Greasemonkey and Climate Asst addons to Firefox (at above link on this site)

        for graphics, they must be already web published for which you provide the url – check out tinyurl to post and then reference your own work

      • Someone already directed you to Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT. (Also on the sidebar.)
        What took me awhile to realize was that in the “comment” section what I typed was text being inserted within invisible (to me) computer code. When you follow Ric’s guidelines, you are simply inserting additional formatting code. What you see inside the “greater than” “less than” symbols won’t show up. The proper “command” (“blockquote” “/blockquote” rather than “quote” “/quote”) simply tell the site what to do with what you typed between the greater/less than signs.
        (PS I said all that, not because I don’t think you could figure it out, but for those who may be as slow to catch on as I am.)

      • And if you can’t follow Gunga Din’s description at what WordPress does to, err, with your text, I changed the couple columns in the command table at to have a second line. I.e.

        [Old header, still there:] Sample
        [New line of explanation] If you type this


        People should see

        I hope that helps. I see my links to the long-gone resource page don’t work, I’ll try to remember to fix that up sometime.

  6. McIntyre’s dissection of Mann’s amended complaint against Steyn on the ‘exoneration’ issue just underscores the message of this post. Attempted whitewashes. Transparently flawed. But media worthy. This hopefully won’t end well for those who participated in the charades.

  7. To be fair the very poor quality of these enquires , the awful record keeping , selecting only data which they liked and truing a blind eye to straight-out lies were after all normal pratice within the climate ‘science’ field .
    They did follow normal pratice for the area , in that they first defined what was needed and then produce the ‘evidenced ‘ to support that need.

  8. With the PR build up to COP15 by the eco-fascists, we see clear evidence of an underlying coordination of the witch hunt on skeptics continuing with the Dr Soon attacks, the infamous Grijalva letter, the temp shutdown of Stevengoddard twitter feed, and the anti-Koch letter. Expect it to get worse as the PR assault to COP15 builds.

  9. I’d always thought that a scientist was looking for an answer to a question. He’d (or she’d) test what they thought might be the answer (or part of it) against reality. The results of the test would be welcomed whether what they thought was right or wrong. They just want to “know”.
    Enter political/ideological/financial concerns.
    The “answer” has then been predetermined no matter what is the reality.

    • Trillions of Dollars, Euros, and Pound sterling are at stake with the fate of the climate change religous crusade. The science was corrupted at the start of the IPCC process. The climate models were only as confirmatory pseudoscience product for a desired output.

      Climate change is an internationally-coordinated adulteration of the science, the past data records, and on-going press releases from the various politicized governmental agents-players. Nature though is throwing them unexpected curve-balls in the form of the pause, the polar sea ice recovery-growth, the fall in storm frequency-severity, the growth of glaciers in the Karakorams, 2 harsh snow cold winters in NA, high Great Lake ice levels, SLR stasis, and steadily increasing world-wide crop yields. But those realities and the money and reputations at stake, now just makes these crusaders dig to deeper levels of dishonesty and attack.

      • Apparently in the US nothing will change until ABC, CBS and NBC says it should. They can lie all they want and no one will be allowed on their networks to say they lie. Funny thing is that they draw the line when they (they anchors) lie about themselves.

    • These guys stopped being scientists when they became activists a long time ago Gunga Din. They think they are better men than you or I.

  10. It was a political agenda driven by an ideology that believes the end justifies the means, even if it requires misusing science or protecting the people who misuse science.

    I’ve said the same thing numerous times on this blog.

    Science is about cause and effect.

    Political science is about means and ends, where the ends justify the means.

    In real science, little goes.

    In political science, anything goes.

  11. A clear and concise report of the corruption of truth that is self evident in the ‘rigged’ enquiries but…… what now? They got away with it then yet, despite many articles repeating the claims of corruption PLUS the evidence to support them, they are STILL getting away with it. Nothing changes. It really does show the levels of authority to which the corruption must rise for evidence such that has and still is being presented may be so readily ignored.
    It would appear that justice is not now nor ever going to be seen to be done and that any further effort on behalf of the truth is going to be wasted.
    Malfeasance (in public office) is a serious offence so who do we apply to in order to see justice served?

    • I’m inclined to agree. They were caught with one hand in the till. Unembarrassed, they are seemingly attempting to put another hand in the till. The only question seems to be how many hands do they posses?

      • The problem is the baby boomers and their determination to make a better world, Alice in wonderland world. They where programmed to hate and destroy the Western World many years ago. Now they are in position to do just that.

  12. I keep saying that readers of this blog should contact their US Senators, US Congressmen and women, Canadian, Aussie and UK members of Parliament and demand an end to funding climate modelling research, funding of the UN, and funding of state, provincial and federal agencies of the environment. That would balance a lot of budgets.

    [And] one more thing. Many of the 2007 IPCC scientists claim to have received the Nobel Peace Prize for their work. Because of several serious misunderstandings globally, the IPCC issued a statement during 2012 on the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as follows

    ( :

    “The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports as a Nobel Laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC Reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007”

    (See also: Laframboise, D, 2014, The IPCC and the Peace Prize: in Moran, A, editor, 2014, Climate Change: The Facts 2014, Melbourne, Australia, Institute of Public Affairs, p. 218).

  13. I’ll ask again: can we please have a peek at the rest of the “climate gate” emails? If Dr. Ball in all his eloquence can illustrate the withholding of data and show the negative consequences of the refusal to disclose, could it be possible that the same reasoning applies to the last batch of emails. P.S. Dr. Ball, who on earth cares about Elizabeth May? The less attention to her the more she will seek it and thus continue to put both feet you know where.

    • Perhaps they should be re-releaked to some other organization who will ensure their re-re-releakage. I too, would like to see the whole data-set not just hand-picked excerpts. You know… context and reference planes, attitudes and professional cohesion, honest follow the data progress…

      • Remember there are still about 250,000 emails that have not been released in the hands of multiple people including Anthony. We have been vaguely promised a release of some of them with inconsequential and personal content removed.

        Perhaps that will happen some time before the Paris Conclave.

    • If I may hazard a guess, I’d say that those consist of all the irrelevant e-mails: meeting invitations, autoreplies, jokes, announcements, budget talks, and all the other trivialities that clutter our inboxes. You know, the ones whose absence told us that Climategate wasn’t a haphazard data dump. There could be a few gems in the reams of e-mails left, but I doubt there’s anything of significance, or even much that would be of any benefit to the wider community.

  14. “Was There a Pattern of Cover Up?…diversions and counterattacks are implemented.”

    Asking that question and making the subsequent observation are akin to asking “Were the fish swimming?….were they breathing through their gills?”

    Politically Correct Progressives (which is the belief system of our opponents in this massive duel) cover up, create diversions, and implement counter-attacks as surely as fish swim and breathe with their gills!

    Their response to exposure has an easy to remember mnemonic: ANDEMCA–Admit Nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

    For the truth and reality to out, we must get over the constant amazement and puzzlement at the tactics of PC-Progs. Accept who they are and their political strategies and tactics.

    Only then do we have any hope to achieve a reality-based outcome.

    Full details of the belief system of PC-Progs:

  15. Revkin conveniently took a lower profile at NYT with his Dot Earth blog post-Climategate.

    Climategate? Investigations? the Pause? not even mentioned in the latest from the Beeb, yet the very title of this program screams out for their inclusion.

    if only it were true that the MSM & pollies had lost interest in CAGW post-Copenhagen as this program claims.

    a full transcript and a thread of its own, plus a critique from Dr. Ball would be great.

    presently on rotation at BBC World Service radio, broadcasting to nearly 200 million worldwide (hopefully, mainly for their English football/soccer coverage).

    AUDIO 25 MINS: BBC: Helena Merriman: The Inquiry: Are We Tired of Talking About Climate Change?
    It seems something is missing from newspapers and TV bulletins – climate change. A story which dominated the news five years ago has dropped steadily down the agenda. One study has found coverage has dropped 36% globally in that time. Why? On The Inquiry this week we hear a tale of chronic political fatigue. We ask whether our hunter-gatherer brains simply aren’t wired to think long-term. And we find out why climate change has all the hallmarks of a story likely to make newspaper editors groan. It could be – as one of our expert witnesses tells us – time to “change the narrative”.

    to “change the narrative”, who does BBC call on?

    Part 1: A Disappearing Story
    Max Boykoff, Associate Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Senior Visiting Research Associate in the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.
    Part 2: The Trauma
    Jennifer Morgan, Global Director of the Climate Program at the WRI, formerly Global Climate Change Director at E3G & leader of the WWF’s Global Climate Change Program,
    supporting the head of the German delegation to the UN climate change negotiations, etc.
    Part 3: Our Ancient Brain
    Robert Gifford, professor of Psychology and Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria (British Columbia, Canada).
    Part 4: An Inconvenient Story
    Joe Smith, Open University UK, plus broadcast and online learning and research project Creative Climate (2009-present).

    i laughed so hard from start to finish, no more so than when Morgan says we must think of the poor negotiators who took a break(?) post the disaster, failure, trauma of Copenhagen. their families hadn’t seen them. the personal sacrifice blah blah.

  16. Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge nails it with regards the science (or lack of it) –
    ”to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general.”

    But this also applies to every activist, journalist and politician of the left. This is why they fight on, shovelling on more and more propaganda, even though there is no hope of saving the hoax now. They don’t know what else to do. They have no exit strategy that will keep careers and reputations intact. The less crazed are now praying for a “warming but less than we thought” soft landing, but that won’t work either.

    The problem for the fellow travellers is they all crowded behind the one stalking horse. They foolishly tried to use science for political purposes. Worse, they tried to do it in the age of the Internet, where the record of their actions is permanent. The lure of using the perceived authority of science blinded the fellow travellers to the ultimate risk. The answer to the AGW question was not going to be soft and subjective like normal political claims. It was going to be black or white, right or wrong. Either adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability, or adding radiative gases increases the atmosphere’s cooling ability (and therefore its ability to cool our solar heated oceans).

    Bereft of any workable exit strategy, the fellow travellers are reduced to shrieking and flogging their dead stalking horse while soaked in the effluvia of eviscerated equine. Every delay in admitting “We were wrong, there is no net radiative GHE” is just making things worse. Some may pray “this is too big to fail” but the problem is the radiative GHE hypothesis is too wrong to stand.

  17. Some quick comments on this brief account of Chapter 8 controversy:

    Singer and Avery wrote: “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process.” However, I think they would both now agree that this was not a single-handed action on the part of Santer. That young and ambition man was put up to it. In the last place, John Houghton will tell you that he requested Santer make the changes after the Madrid WGI meeting, and he approved them when they were made. But, anyway, none of this would not have happened if Houghton did not give Santer the floor at the Madrid WGI meeting so that Santer could tell the delegates that Ch 8 is out of date and needs changing. Against protests, Houghton (and Bolin) then approved that the meeting proceeding to change the SPM — and therefore the underlying chapter. There was more to the crucifixion of climate science in Madrid than this Judas cheek-kisser.

    While I admire John Daly, it was not Daly who first pointed to the change in the radiosondes trend (in the critical southern lat mid troposphere) when the data were updated from 1987 to 1995 . John Christy first raised the issue of the date range with Santer when Santer first presented his new findings to peers at the final lead authors meeting for SAR (that was in the Summer before Madrid). And then, as Daly points out, Michaels and Knappenberger finally got their reply to Santer’s 4 July Nature paper published on 12 Dec 1996. Alas, Santer’s paper came just before Tim Wirth’s speech at CoP2 (with the US policy change on binding targets) but this reply long long after. See the original M&K graph here:

  18. After reading this and thanks Tim, what is going on in the life of our Indian rail road engineer? haven’t clickety clack from that neck of the woods at all.

    • Under UK law it is forbidden to report on a court case that is proceeding for fear of biasing the jury. You can’t get a fair trial if the media is reporting and spinning every detail.

      I assume that India has a similar law.

  19. Tim – I think incompetence is in play here more than anything. Rather than contrivance a conspiracy, I think there is just along trail of trying to justify their incompetency.

  20. No rational person could read the full details of the Penn State investigation and come to any other conclusion than it was a deliberate and obviously manipulated process designed specifically to avoid dealing with the heart of the matter.

    It was like watching some bizarre murder investigation. The suspect has been found standing over the body with a smoking gun in one hand and a bloody knife in the other. Forensics shows that bullets in the body were fired by that gun, the body has been stabbed multiple times and the blood on the knife is a match for the victim, and there was a blue No 2 pencil beside the body. The detective asks the suspect if he has ever owned a blue No 2 pencil and the suspect says no. The detective says OK, you’re free to go.

  21. for those who don’t listen to BBC’s audio, some of the fun bits have been documented:

    1 April: BBC: Are we tired of talking about climate change?
    Since there is a consensus amongst the majority of the world’s scientists that temperatures are rising – most likely driven by human behaviour – why does climate change coverage seem to be drying up? …
    Max Boykoff: Significant decline in coverage since 2009:
    “We see examples of this unfolding quite regularly. There’s certainly newsroom pressures. There’s shrinking time to deadline, there’s reduced resources to cover complex issues such as climate change that require a certain level of investigation, a certain level of familiarity with the contours and the nuances of the topics.”…
    Jennifer Morgan: Frustration after Copenhagen was damaging :
    “It was terrible. [We felt] an exhausted defeat, just a deep fatigue, particularly from the European side, of just wanting to take a break. The personal sacrifice – it sounds crazy – but believing and trying to make something happen, I think it was a trauma, just to put so much blood, sweat and tears into it.
    “Right after Copenhagen, there was a sense that there needed to be a bit of a time out on the world leaders’ side of things. So it definitely went into a very low level of attention for a few years. The relationships of some of the Heads of State after Copenhagen were quite strained.
    “Even months after, it was almost like [they] had been being psychologically burned by this…
    Robert Gifford: Problems are too complex and too distant
    Environmental psychologist Robert Gifford researches why even those who accept a link between human behaviour and climate change are reluctant to act.
    “Our brain physically hasn’t developed much for about 30,000 years. At that time we were mostly wandering around on the Savannah, and our main concerns were very immediate: feeding ourselves right now, worrying about anybody who might try to take our territory. There was very little thinking about what might happen in five years, 10 years, or 100km away…
    “We still have this same brain. Obviously we’re capable of planning, but the kind of default is to stick into the here and now, which is not very good for thinking about climate change, which is a problem that, for many people, is more in the future and farther away, or at least we think it is.
    “[And] as any advertiser knows, if you don’t change your message people will just tune out. And so environmental numbness is ‘yes, I’ve heard that message before’…So if governments or policymakers repeat the same message too often, people just tune out after a while.”…
    “Most of us who are trying to do something about this have realised, for example, that the polar bear metaphor is not a great one. Yes, we have some sympathy for this poor polar bear, but it’s not close enough to our own lives…
    “Uncertainty is a really big problem. We’ve learned in my own laboratory from experimental evidence that when people feel a bit uncertain about an environmental problem – if the future temperature might vary from a half a degree increase to a one and a half degrees increase – people will say ‘well, it’s probably only going to be a half a degree increase, so I’ll keep flying to some tropical place’…
    Joe Smith: Accept that climate science is ‘unfinishable’:
    “I’m not sure that people need to engage with climate change at all. It’s more or less unreportable if you just describe it on the page. It’s complex, interdisciplinary, the findings drip out over time, and the boundary between science and policy and politics is a very messy one. It’s a real challenge for the media…
    “There was a tactical wrong turning in suggesting that by insisting that the debate is over, we can move onto the action. It somehow implied that the science was complete, and that, of course, left lots of space for those people who have arguments about the actions on climate change to stand in the way of us having a proper public conversation about those actions because they were able to pick apart minor details in the science.
    “It’s not just that climate science isn’t finished, it’s actually unfinishable.
    “The rest of science – particle physics, cosmology – is allowed to be rather saucy. I would love to get to the point where we allow climate change science to simply be interesting, enchanting even, as fascinating as any area of science because it’s a hugely ambitious and compelling mission…

    • @ Pat what the heck is an “Environmental psychologist” from your comment?
      “Environmental psychologist Robert Gifford researches why even those who accept a link between human behavior and climate change are reluctant to act.” (about third of the way down)
      Is this an April 1 thingy? That whole comment you wrote is about as confusing as any I have ever read.or is it truly correct? It is hard to read so ok if it is a spoof you sure got me ( going to sleep now.).

      • what the heck is an “Environmental psychologist”
        An attempt by psychologists to dip their snout in the deeply filled ‘climate scare ‘ research bucket.
        Or an attempted by idealogical fanatics to label sceptics not just wrong but ‘mad or bad’ by nature .
        take your pick which one of these Lew paper is .

    • Pat, thanks for that. You grabbed several key points.

      I have just completed the annual pilgrimage to the Domestic Use of Energy Conference in Cape Town, a long-running international conference where papers are peer reviewed and published in an IEEE journal. We were treated to an extraordinary plenary session presentation at the beginning of day one by a man from the IPEEC, a man as bald as his fallacious and baseless assertions, on the need for climate alarm.

      Interestingly, he began with a question: “What is the most important greenhouse gas?” in the general silence that followed I offered, “Water vapour!”

      He responded, “Water vapour, that’s right. I can see I am addressing an academic audience.” He then went on to make a presentation designed to fool the children into thinking that it was 5 degrees colder when the Sahara was green and lush 8000 years ago and that the rise to the current temperature was why it is a desert now. Oh, and that there was an ice cap on Europe at the time.

      A major assertion was that there are only two positions to debate now – whether the consequences of AGW CO2 with be a big disaster or a terrible disaster. There are no other positions to argue, he said, absently. (Kids love Tom Swifties!)

      It is all the more remarkable, on hearing this, that he admitted right at the beginning he knew he was addressing a knowledgeable audience that understood enough about climate science to know he was talking through his hat, when he did. Yet he blithely continued with his childish stories as if we were children who had just put down our copies of “Now We Are Six”.

      We could not have asked for a more perfect ambassador of CAGW.

  22. An excellent review of the crooked actions of those wedded to the concept of AGW. Reading this and similar reports makes me even more impressed by the perceptive understanding expressed by President Dwight Eisenhower in his valedictory address. For those interested it can be found here, he foresaw the corruption of science to the alter of political ambitions, and not just in relation to the military.

  23. Would it not possible to set up an independent enquiry in London, involving all leading pro and anti GW scientists, with no pre-conceived purpose but to give a platform to all the leading pro. and anti scientists to argue their point? Possibly organised by The Gobal Warming Foundation or some other independant body? If nothing else it would invite the AGW supporters to justify their arguments.against the evidence promoted by the sceptics.

  24. It is most encouraging to me, and I am sure, to many others, to see Dr. Tim Ball come out ‘swinging’ in his recent articles. It may empower other reputable scientists to do so, rather than to be ‘muzzled’ on the sidelines. We also need to do as he does, and name names, place blame for any calumny squarely upon the shoulders of those responsible for it, and make them ‘wear’ it as a badge of dishonor.

  25. To me, it seems like more of the same form what might be called an Old Boy’s Club. “We’re all colleagues here, so let’s just do what we have to do to get through these annoying investigation meetings, then we can all head off to the pub for a drink.”

  26. A summation on the heals of Dr Ball’s climate change debate with Elizabeth he alludes to. BTW, he won that debate hands down. I agree a good summation of the corrupted science since the claim it was settled. The junk science that led up to the claim the science was “settled” is also interesting.

  27. The special ops teams of climate science message management look and sound a lot like political special ops teams of scandal or inconvenient truth management. Could there be a connection there?

  28. Dr. Ball,

    Thank you for the recap. This needs to be presented annually as there are a great many that are recently looking into the CAGW scam. They need to be presented with that same information that those of us who have been following the issue for several years already know but like a reminder from time to time. The entire saga is just unbelievably messy. It should have never started, much less advanced as far as it has. And the ring leaders are still at the public trough. Sad.

    A presentation of the graph as shown by Frank Lansner (which you provided but coloring diff.) would be good to distribute more widely to show how the scam was perpetuated.

    There is so much to show wrong with the global warming meme that it will take an encyclopedia to present it.

  29. I counter May’s “Myth of Doubt” ( if such a thing can exist ) with the ” Myth of Certainty”.

  30. All of this is just another example of climate entanglement…crooked actions at a distance.

  31. I heard your interview on CFAX radio I believe it was, with Elizabeth May. Sincerely some serious ass handing I must say. This woman thought debating you would easy, she was wrong.

Comments are closed.